I. WHAT IS HAPPINESS?
II. WHAT THE DALAI LAMA AND D. GILBERT SAY ABOUT HAPPINESS
A. THE DALAI LAMA’S VIEW
1. Desires – are they good or bad?
2. Self-satisfaction as the moving force.
3. Greed as the obstacle to happiness.
4. Two ways to be happy.
B. DANIEL GILBERT’S POSITION.
1. Parents happiness with children
2. Reasons of parents’ unhappiness.
a. Overexpectation.
b. Children as a natural way to feel happy.
c. The only source of happiness.
III. PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TWO APPROACHES FROM THE POSITION OF INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION.
IV. THE FIRST APPROACH IS MORE PROFOUND, AND THE SECOND APPROACH IS CLEARER AND SIMPLER.
V. HAPPINESS IN APPRECIATION OF THINGS WE HAVE.
VI. WORKS CITED PAGE.
Be happy and don’t worry?
The concept of happiness and the ways to be happy have been discussed for many years by many scholars and ordinary people. There are many ideas and suggestions, but the main ideas have always stayed relatively the same, based on the concepts of kindness, moral values, balance, inner harmony and so on and so forth. We will analyze and compare the approaches to human happiness represented by the Dalai Lama, a world-known monk, and Daniel Gilbert, an American social psychologist and a writer. They both study the essence of happiness, but their views have a number of differences, which, nevertheless, don’t make their opinions mutually exclusive. They have very much in common, and their main motto may sound like – “to be happy, appreciate everything you have”. Let’s look at each scholar’s discussion more closely.
The Dalai Lama suggests that people can find happiness in contentment. First of all, it is connected with desires. A person should get rid of his/her negative wishes (e.g., excessive desire for what we don’t need) and concentrate on positive ones – reasonable desires, which will make his/her life easier, but will not influence the feeling of self-satisfaction. Thus, the second important aspect the Dalai Lama speaks about is self-satisfaction. It cannot be and must never be the only moving force for any action because it can bring about both positive and negative results. As the Dalai Lama states, “self-satisfaction alone cannot determine if a desire or action is positive or negative” (Cutler 1001). People must never act only to satisfy themselves. Since when they reach this limit and buy everything they want, they will not stop, as usually believed. People will rather lose hope and happiness at all. The third important aspect of contentment as the way to happiness is greed – “an exaggerated form of desire, based on overexpectation” (Cutler 1001). When a person doesn’t receive what he/she imagined and idealized so much, he/she feels broken and disappointed. Thus, even after receiving the object, people do not feel happy at all. They still want more.
The Dalai Lama offers two methods of becoming happy – to satisfy all our wishes and every desire until we reach the unreal and get stuck in a place of coveting. The other way is to want and value what we possess. As an example, the author introduces the story of the actor Christopher Reeve, who got a spinal cord injury in an accident and stayed paralyzed. At first he felt extremely desperate and even greedy for people who could just walk, but later he decided to be grateful for good medicine which saved his life, for being alive and having only physical disease (i.e., still staying mentally health) and to look at his merits instead of miseries, which had fallen to his lot. He concentrated on his advantages – mental skills and continued working. Moreover, he devoted much time and efforts to educating and warning other people about spinal cord injury. Eventually, he didn’t feel so depressed and lifted in spirits. We may even suggest that his life acquired new colours. Thus, the Dalai Lama sees contentment as the best way to happiness (Cutler 1000-10002).
The position of Daniel Gilbert is not very far from that of the Dalai Lama and in no way contradicts to it. He would rather focus his attention on happiness of parents with children. Just like the Dalai Lama, he speaks about desires as well, but specifies the sphere, – he says that people feel happier when they are free from children and can devote their time to their own aspirations, the state called by the author “empty-nest syndrome” (Barnet 985), but they are less happy spending time with their children and even envy to those who can enjoy their life. The author provided three main reasons why people don’t feel as happy with their kids as without them. The first reason has much in common with the Dalai Lama’s idea of overexpectation and greed: parents pay a lot for their children – morally, physically, financially, etc. – and expect to receive the feedback of the same scale. As Daniel Gilbert states, “when we pay a lot for something, we assume it makes us happy” (Barnet 985). Moreover, parenthood and bringing up of children is built into human nature, and every couple who decides to have children expects to acquire satisfaction and eternal happiness, – maybe because they saw it in films or in other families and therefore acquired such a stereotype. When they don’t get what they want, they feel at a loss and get disappointed in parenthood at all. The second reason is also reflected in the Dalai Lama’s concept of appreciation of what we possess – people tend to memorize the best moments connected with their children, and their brain tries its best to forget sleepless night and nerves which they brought us before. Thus, we can say that the brain wants a person to be happy and to forget everything bad that happened to him or her before. As the author underlines, “memories are dominated by their most powerful instances” (Barnet 986). It is natural for people and it is the best way to enjoy their life. The third reason can also be treated as a specific example of the Dalai Lama’s philosophy. After having a baby, people tend to concentrate on their kids and leave all other spheres of life aside. Thus, the child becomes the only potential source of happiness for us. It is very tightly connected with the idea “love and value what you have even if you have not very much”, which is supported by the Dalai Lama. Daniel Gilbert advises people not to concentrate on the life which they would have had without children or on daily misfortunes our children bring them. He suggests treating them as the reason to be grateful for having children, for having them healthy and strong, for their first words, and for all these things, which can daily make them grumble but sometimes make them cry from happiness and thank God for having this little treasure (Barnet 985-986).
As far as I am concerned, these two sources speak of practically the same ideas, but there are slight differences in their reflections and thoughts. As for the Dalai Lama, his argument is rather more theoretical and more philosophical – he speaks about the concept of happiness in general and provides only examples of the actor and the car, but doesn’t develop these ideas much. We can take his main ideas and apply them to any sphere of life, which is significant for us at the moment. In his reasoning we may follow the way of deduction – going from the general to the specific. As for Daniel Gilbert, his argument is more concise and concrete, he speaks only about happiness of parents, who have children and spend much time with them. His ideas are based on the same grounds advocated by the Dalai Lama, but we need to refer to the line of induction – going from the specific (examples) to the general (ideas, concepts).
The idea of happiness and the way to attain it is better described by the Dalai Lama, since any person can read his ideas and follow his recommendations and moral teachings to enjoy his or her life to the full and appreciate every moment and every person around. On the other hand, the argument of Daniel Gilbert can seem clearer to some people because he provides more specific examples and break his ideas down for the readers, especially if it is read by the target audience – people with children or people with grown-up children, who admitted or felt that they didn’t feel happier being parents than before or after children grew up. If the Dalai Lama provides steps for happiness which can help any person, Daniel Gilbert offers the steps which can help parents feel better.
I would like to say that the idea of happiness presented by these two scholars and wise people seems very simple and at the same time extremely complex – in the world of progress and commerce, in the world of money ruling everything, including people’s hearts, it becomes harder and harder to stay deaf to useless noise and see straight more important things. Moral values and really important things become ironically less and less valuable in the modern world and the basic things fall into the abyss. That’s why it is especially essential for us not to forget the fundamental truth maintained by the wise – want what you have instead of having what you want. Love what you have and what you do and you will see the positive feedback and happy outcome.
Works Cited
Barnet, Sylvan. "Does Fatherhood Make You Happy?" Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. Ninth ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 985-86. Print.
Cutler, Howard C. "Inner Contentment." Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. Ninth ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 1000-002. Print.
